R v Neto

Case [2016] QCA 217

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Neto [2016] QCA 217

PARTIES:

R
v
NETO, Adrian Guilherme
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 89 of 2016
SC No 871 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 March 2016

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, a Brazilian national, pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug – where the applicant imported 712.3 grams of pure cocaine into Brisbane from Dubai – where the applicant was sentenced to a term of seven years six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years three months – where the applicant alleges that the head sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive – where it is submitted that a review of previous Court of Appeal decisions suggests that the head sentence and non-parole period imposed ‘seem’ manifestly excessive – whether a comparison of the proposed comparable cases with the applicant’s sentence compels a conclusion that there must have been some misapplication of principle by the sentencing judge in arriving at it and therefore the sentence is manifestly excessive

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Kuti v R [2012] NSWCCA 43, considered
Lau v The Queen [2011] VSCA 324, considered
R v Alvarez[2000] QCA 290, considered
R v Jimson[2009] QCA 183, considered
R v Mokoena [2009] 2 Qd R 351; [2009] QCA 36, considered
R v Pham (2015) 90 ALJR 13; [2015] HCA 39, applied
R v Tran (2007) 172 A Crim R 436; [2007] QCA 221, considered
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
K A Milbourne (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

  2. GOTTERSON JA: On 21 March 2016 in the Supreme Court at Brisbane, the applicant, Adrian Guilherme Neto, pleaded guilty to offending against s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The count to which he pleaded guilty alleged that he had imported a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely, cocaine.

  3. At a sentence hearing conducted immediately after the plea was taken, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of seven years six months’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of four years three months was set…

Continue reading R v Neto

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Neto [2016] QCA 217
Case
[2016] QCA 217
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Neto involves an appeal against sentence by the applicant, a Brazilian national, who pleaded guilty to the importation of a significant quantity of a border-controlled drug. The applicant imported 712.3 grams of pure cocaine into Brisbane from Dubai. Following his guilty plea, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years and three months. The applicant contends that both the head sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge must have misapplied the principles of sentencing, resulting in an unjust sentence. The legal issues at the heart of this appeal revolve around whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there was a misapplication of sentencing principles.

The court was required to consider the principle that a sentence is manifestly excessive if it is so disproportionate to the offence that it shocks the conscience or if it demonstrates a failure to apply relevant principles in a manner consistent with the law. The applicant's submission was that, when compared to other cases where similar offences were committed, the sentence imposed on the applicant seemed excessively harsh. However, the court examined the applicant's arguments and the relevant sentencing principles, concluding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the applicant's role in the importation of the drugs, and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence and did not represent a misapplication of sentencing principles.

Consequently, the court determined that the applicant's appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused, and the original sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and three months, was upheld. The court found no grounds for interference with the sentence imposed by the primary judge, and the applicant's appeal was accordingly unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.